Heh, force of habit. No, I do think that part of the divide in this discussion is the idea of "private information" in markets and how that private information can be used, if it exists. The University of Chicago school of markets says that there is no such thing as private information. I disagree (as do many others) and I think that anyone with the ability to create a working trading system that relies on rules is also smart enough to know how to hide it from others, thus making it private information. So, the idea that simply because such systems exist, they must therefore be put in the public domain to create "red light green light millionaires" is begging the question because, simply put, no one with such a system could ever be compensated "in advance" for the system's full lifetime value, since trading systems are "experience goods" and those are notoriously hard to price.
They are not in place for most traders and most traders will go live with real money without those variables in place. Their assumption or reasoning is that in time they will be in place. Rarely does such happen as witness in the countless of trade journals here at ET and at many other trader forums that gives us a look into their trading beyond the TA along with the countless of individual message posts by traders asking for help with their "trading plan" even though they are already live trading with real money.
Well, I was speaking generally about the impact of those factors. In my specific case, yes, it could be automated, but that would require, I think, about a year of work by an expert coder. I used to do coding back in the early 2000's, so I have some ideas on what it would take to work it out in Java or C++. Since I can manage it without that, that's the route I'm taking at this point. This is basically an intraday/overnight system, so it's not as if I have to be able to react in sub-millisecond time. As for discipline, yes, I track what my lack of discipline costs me. The fact that breaking my rules actually costs me more than it makes me is just further validation of the rules, though. If the rules were random or poorly-constructed, breaking them would make me money (or, at least lose me less).
Not sure what your question is. I mean the school of economic analysis that's typically associated with the University of Chicago, and more specifically, the analysis associated with their view of financial markets. If you look, as part of the overall framework of the EMH, they assume there is no such thing as "private information".
Technically, all the components of my method are freely out there, it's the combination and the rules created around that combination that is private. But, that's not to say someone else hasn't or doesn't use the same strat I do. I'm just not aware of whether anyone is.
Similar phenomenon: Traders who hold a loser to the full stop out, but as soon as a trade runs a few ticks in their favor, they move the stop to break even because "there's no way to lose if you do that". :eek: :eek: Agreed, these trades are ATM machines.
Right, I don't mean that everyone will have them in place (heck, I know I didn't), but that once they are in place, more advanced topics can be discussed or considered, but that before they are in place, one should probably focus on them, rather than a back-and-forth about TA (or any other A) in general.